The View From the Sinister Side of Life

"The people are very kind."

I never hated Condoleeza Rice. I thought, at first, that maybe she was not like the other Bushites, maybe had some integrity. I came to reconsider that as the years went on, but I still kept hoping there was something more there. She was smart, educated, cultured, kind of hot. But she’s a continual disappointment, even out of office.

She has a clueless piece today in “The Daily Beast” (whatever that is) about attending the Masters Tournament at Augusta National Golf Club. Apparently she learned to golf a few years ago and is now a big fan. She gushes about the beautiful course, the thrill of competition, Tiger Woods, and “another favorite” of hers, Fuzzy Zoeller (the player who, after Tiger Woods became the first black winner of the Masters Tournament, famously refered to him as “little boy” and joked that he’d better “not serve fried chicken next year, got it? Or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve” at the Champions Dinner).

Somehow she fails to notice that, as a woman, she is ineligible to join the club or play in the tournaments even if she qualified, and that, as a black person, she would have been similarly ineligible within her adult lifetime. Caddies, by rule, were always black; players never were until 1990 (though blacks who qualified for the tournament could play – during Masters Week only – all the way back as far as . . . 1975). The fact that the club threatened to cancel her beloved Masters Tournament entirely just 5 years ago, rather than admit women as members, is apparently fine with her.

It’s not that she’s entirely oblivious to Augusta’s history, or its glacial pace of evolution. It’s just so irrelevant to her that, literally, she can’t seem to find the energy even to mention it, or to say what it is she’s actually talking about in the single sentence of her entire piece that alludes to its past and ongoing history of segregation.

The people are very kind. Clearly, the faces at Augusta are changing as America is changing. But there is a timelessness to it that is very nice.

Tell me, do you really think that racial segregation in 1990 was simply a “very nice” example of “timelessness”? You think the exclusion of women still is? That people who behave that way are “kind” in any legitimate sense – or, I suppose, that being “kind” simply doesn’t mean not being the kind of person who practices segregation? Or finally, perhaps, that’s all just less significant to you than old magnolia and bright green grass? And why is it, again, that women’s issues are so negligible?

It took decades of pressure to force the club to admit blacks a members – which they now claim as a sign of their enlightenment. Women petitioned the club for admission thereafter and were spurned, and the club fought viciously against pro-woman protests as late as 2002 and 2003; no one seems to mind. The club Chair who led the anti-woman fight styles himself a civil rights activist because he had earlier served on the state college desegregation committee; apparently intoxicated by his Days of Rage, and forgetting which side of the barrier he was pretending to be on, this desegregationist hero announced, in the 21st century, that Augusta would not admit female members even “at the point of a bayonet”. The message is seemingly too subtle for a former Secretary of State and Stanford University professor of Political Science.

You could almost make a case for showing up at Augusta in spite of segregation. Certainly her hero, the defiantly apolitical Tiger Woods, did so when he played at the club at a time when they had admitted men like him as members for less than a decade, and women were literally banging at the gates for the same courtesy with no success and no support from Tiger. But to do so you have to notice there’s a problem and be able to openly say so; you have to give a reason for supporting the club in spite of their behavior. But, as a former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice has no trouble getting any privilege she asks for (when she said she was coming to the Masters, they asked her which player she’d like to follow; this at a club where most guests have to fight massive crowds just to get near the course, and where, I note again, women are not allowed to join at all). And from that perspective she apparently can’t see further than her own personal, indulged and exempted, experience.

Just as she did so often as Bush’s beard, Rice makes herself an apology for racist, sexist old white men’s anxieties, and determinedly forces herself not to notice either what’s going on around her or how she herself is contributing. She even goes out of her way to write about the fact that she spent an entire day at Augusta, knows it’s segregated, and hasn’t got anything to say about that.

Jesus, Condi – the WMDs weren’t enough of an embarrassment? Now you can’t even notice discrimination in Augusta, Georgia? What does it take to get you to see things clearly? What does it take to get you to take a stand on something? I mean . . . a golf tournament? Anything?

Nobody ever said they should be forced to behave like decent human beings residing in the 21st Friggin’ Century. A lot of people thought it would be a good idea for them to, and fairer to the people who were being excluded from the benefits of the club. But the campaign to make them better than they are was focused on simply drawing attention to their behavior, in the hopes that they would finally become embarrassed by themselves, or at least that their members – largely high-profile business leaders, including Fortune 500 CEOs – would force them to. (Apparently, nobody in that group, or the PGA, is embarrassed by segregation, which in itself is useful information.)

There have been attempts to sue male-only clubs on grounds of discrimination; they have worked only when the clubs could be characterized as “public accommodations”, either places that did business as ordinary for-profit establishments, or served as de facto business centers for men. I don’t know if that’s been tried at Augusta, but it probably wouldn’t work there. Like every purely private establishment, they do have the legal right to discriminate if they want to. Nobody can force them not to be assholes. That they so strongly defend their right to be is up to them.

So do you classify a group of women that gather and refuse to allow men to join the club “assholes”? Would you tell them they should be ashamed of any types of segregation they display or practice? Or is this exclusively directed at men or women who don’t tow the feminist line?

I don’t know enough about Rice to say what kind of person she is but it seems to me she would be held up as someone to look up to for a career woman. Or are you saying she got her position by sleeping her way to the top or some other way outside of her ability?

(1) (a) You believe the situation of the vast number of men’s clubs – country clubs, private clubs, “service” clubs, almost all major universities (at one time), all military services (at one time), etc. – that do or did exclude women, and the hypothetical women’s clubs (seriously – are there any of any significance?) that exclude men are just the same? That the impact and social significance of discrimination in those cases is the same? If not, why would our response to them possibly be the same?

(1) (b) If there are in fact women’s groups that have the same reach, impact, and social influence as the men’s clubs that exclude women, and which exclude men, of course I’d call their members assholes. Now find one.

(1) (c) A common, rough but often-cited, definition of feminism is that it is “the belief that women are human beings” – the implication, if it’s not clear, being that they should be treated like other human beings. If you’re down with that, you don’t join segregated clubs. If you’re not down with that, yes, you’re an asshole.

(2) (a) Why would anyone look up to a woman who defended an aggressively anti-woman (and, not incidentally, corrupt, untruthful, pro-war, pro-torture, anti-due-process, and counter-Constitutional) administration as a role model? She rose to great prominence, it is true; she did so be defending and promoting gross atrocities and legal travesties, along with an all-out assault on women’s liberty. She is no more a role model for women than Dick Cheney was for men, with the added proviso that she actively worked specifically against the interests of other members of her own gender, thus subverting even the fellow-sympathy she might be expected to have (while Cheney, as a paid-up member of the He-Man Woman Hater’s Club, carried no such expectation).

(2) (b) What is it about “makes herself an apology for racist, sexist old white men’s anxieties, and determinedly forces herself not to notice . . . what’s going on around her” that possibly suggests to you “slept her way to the top”? I said clearly what I objected to in Rice, in general and in this recent incident; it has nothing to do with what you said. It seems like you have some sort of generic insult to women programmed into your head, such that any criticism of women is equivalent to that one. I said she was smart and educated, among other things, and noted the professional accomplishments that would have led us to expect better things from her. My complaint is that she does not use her talents and accomplishments to better purposes. You don’t have to invent some kind of lurid, old-fashioned, sexist accusation to criticize a professional woman on her (lack of) merits; it’s precisely because I do take her seriously as a professional that I am not satisfied with the way she conducts herself. (All that notwithstanding, I do think it’s bizarre that she once referred to George W. Bush, at a dinner party, as “my husband” – but we’ll leave that aside.)

Okay. I will admit that at first I did not read the article. However, once I did, I came to the conclusion that if the guys looking for Kennedy’s assassin dug for clues the way you dig for hidden meaning, they would have solved the case in a day.

You cite tiny excerpts from a large article, and even then you take those out of context in order to, as far as I can see, make a point completely irrelevant to what the article was about. My gosh man, read the freaking article without looking through your anti-conservative glasses and you will see an article detailing one person’s experience in the moment.

Based on what you have posted here, I am getting a very strong impression that you are filled with as much hatred, if not more, than those people you vilify. However, since you couch it in “pro-feminist” politically correct wording, you seem to think your brand of hate is okay. Seems you are guilty of what racists have been guilty of in the past……their culture made being racist the norm so they saw it as okay. Now, the culture you seem to be immersed in makes hating conservatives and Christians the norm so you see it as okay for you to hate them.

From my perspective, hate is wrong at all times.

And if equality is truly your goal, then the financial restrictions to join the golf club should be removed as well because if not then clearly the separation becomes rich vs poor which is just as wrong. Unless, of course, only rich men and women, are people and the poor don’t matter.

I don’t understand what this means – or at least why it’s an objection.

Of course the criticisms I made weren’t “what the article was about”. (I wouldn’t really have expected Rice to write an article about her own lack of political consciousness.) The entire point was that Rice – a prominent black woman – spent a day at, and wrote an entire article about, an institution with an outrageous, ongoing, and in fact openly and aggressively defended practice of racial (then) and gender (still) discrimination, and seemed completely oblivious to that context. Her sole reference to those facts, sandwiched into her lavish praise of the institution, its “history” (!), and how “kind” everyone there was – to a person who fits both major categories of past and present discrimination practiced by those same people – was so ludicrously obtuse that it can’t be ignored. And that failing is compounded by the facts that (a) she is a person of such capacity and attainment as to be expected to be able to see through, and confront, that situation, and (b) she allows her own prominence and privilege to insulate her from practices that affect people like her who are not as lucky.

All that matters far more to me than how pretty the trees on the golf course are – and the fact that it apparently doesn’t matter that much to Rice is worth commenting on. She may have spent a day at Augusta not noticing racism and sexism, and written an article making that all too clear, but I can’t read that article and not notice that she didn’t notice, nor do I want to, or feel like I should.

As for “hating” conservatives and Christians, I don’t hate them as such. I do hate bigots, reactionaries, and those who make it their business to muck up other people’s lives. I also notice that seems to include a large percentage of conservatives and Christians, but that’s their choice. They are free not to behave that way, and I wish they would. I am much less concerned with whether they are hated than with whether they are behaving badly (and, given that the former would end when the latter does, there’s an easy way to solve both problems).

As for equality of economic access, that’s an important goal in many situations. We should insist that unequal economic means should not be a barrier to access to many things, including education, healthcare, retirement security, and more. And there ought to be at least some degree of access to some of the amenities of life, in addition to its minimal necessities. A decent society holds that as a value – and that’s why we have publicly supported parks, museums, and other recreational opportunities (including public golf courses). It’s certainly not the case that only the rich are real people and the poor don’t matter – quite the opposite, in fact. Though it may not be necessary for every institution of every type to have universal access – rich assholes have rights, too – at least some should, and if none did, there would be grounds for complaint.

Now why, since I know you’re going to be confused on this point, should we make a distinction between discrimination based on income (OK in limited cases) and discrimination based on race or gender (never OK – with negligible exceptions)? For several reasons that I can only sketch in brief: (a) we accept as a social value a competitive economic system in which differential income is a result, and allow differences in economic opportunity (within the limits described above) as a consequence; (b) we pretend, and we try to arrange things so, that that competitive system functions in such a way that economic success rewards factors under one’s personal control (like career choices and effort) and does not track with immutable qualities like race or gender; (c) the particular inequity of group discrimination is that it targets people who cannot do anything to improve their situation, and are doomed to discrimination for generations on end – and the history of such discrimination has included some of the most vicious and persistent oppression in the country’s history. For all those reasons, we are particularly sensitized to discrimination on lines of race, gender, and sexual orientation. (For similar historical reasons, we are also sensitized to discrimination on the basis of religion or political creed, even though those are not immutable characteristics.) Treating “inequality” in such abstract terms that it takes no notice of how discrimination actually works, or what its history is, makes no sense. Luckily, liberals don’t do that.

KTK’s post was not a summary of what the article was about, nor was it presented as such. It was in fact, an observation of what the article was NOT about, about what was conspicuously absent from Condee’s take on Augusta, and why , as black woman, such an absence is so conspicuous, or at least meaningful.

KTK,

…. a woman who defended an aggressively anti-woman (and, not incidentally, corrupt, untruthful, pro-war, pro-torture, anti-due-process, and counter-Constitutional) administration as a role model? She rose to great prominence, it is true; she did so be defending and promoting gross atrocities and legal travesties, along with an all-out assault on women’s liberty. She is no more a role model for women than Dick Cheney was for men, with the added proviso that she actively worked specifically against the interests of other members of her own gender,…

Yes.

And then….

the professional accomplishments that would have led us to expect better things from her

Or maybe those professional accomplishments would have led us to expect exactly what she did (or didn’t do)…

Somehow she fails to notice that, as a woman, she is ineligible to join the club or play in the tournaments even if she qualified, and that, as a black person, she would have been similarly ineligible within her adult lifetime.

or to say what it is she’s actually talking about in the single sentence of her entire piece that alludes to its past and ongoing history of segregation.

The people are very kind. Clearly, the faces at Augusta are changing as America is changing. But there is a timelessness to it that is very nice.

Tell me, do you really think that racial segregation in 1990 was simply a “very nice” example of “timelessness”? You think the exclusion of women still is? That people who behave that way are “kind” in any legitimate sense – or, I suppose, that being “kind” simply doesn’t mean not being the kind of person who practices segregation? Or finally, perhaps, that’s all just less significant to you than old magnolia and bright green grass? And why is it, again, that women’s issues are so negligible?

The above comments from KTK’s original post indicated that he was critiquing what she had written. He was disgusted by what he viewed as her “obtuseness”. The context of the phrase she used was very clearly indicating the layout and design of the complex as well as the leisurely pace at which things proceed. Indeed a harkening back to when life moved at a much slower and more relaxed pace. It had absolutely nothing to do with the racist policies of the past or the “no women members allowed” policy of the present.

It seems that for KTK, she should never have written the article or if she did that it should have been a vicious piece attacking the institution. Perhaps nothing should be written about Augusta unless it is highly critical and insulting.

If the article had been intended to be written as a political piece or as an observation of the current status of women in the club, then fine, criticize. But to pick this article, grab a line completely out of context and attack the author because she did not write in a manner KTK found acceptable shows a severe level of intolerance on KTK’s part. She wasn’t writing an article about women’s issues. She was writing an article about how her day went. People should be allowed to have a life outside of political activism.

I do hate bigots, reactionaries, and those who make it their business to muck up other people’s lives

You hate bigots (One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.) while being completely intolerant of someone doing something that you disagree with.

You hate reactionaries. – So, if people do not agree with what you feel should be done or changed they are branded reactionary?

You hate people who make it their business to muck up other people’s lives? – I don’t think so. You hate people who make it their business to muck up other people’s lives in a way you disagree with. You are more than willing to approve of people who muck up the lives of those you dislike or disapprove of.

It seems to me that you may be the very embodiment of those you hate. Simply the other side of the spectrum.

Broder is a political columnist for the Washington Post who is criticized by both the left and the right for his over-eagerness to manufacture faux-balance. “Side A is sometimes guilty of X; Side B is also sometimes guilty of X; therefore, Side A and Side B are equally guilty.” The conclusion does not follow from the two premises. (cf., Broderism)

hehehe. I get it. I’m sure I come across as that sometimes. My actual perspective is that yes, atrocities have happened in the past. However, an unemotional objective observer can acknowledge positive things while being disgusted by the ugly things.

Example? I think the guys at Augusta are stupid for not letting in women and they were incredibly racist at one time (and perhaps still). However, that would not preclude me from being able to appreciate the beauty of the course, etc. if I was there. I don’t see an issue with someone being able to do so. It seems KTK is not able to do that which is unfortunate for him because people who are unable to do so tend to spend their lives being bitter and angry because at some point all they can see is the negative.

I am more willing to acknowledge both good and bad in people. Example? Hitler. The man was a crazed psychopath with an extreme hatred for Jews, Gypsies, etc. He was incredibly evil. At the same time, he had an incredible charisma that captivated a nation and he dragged it out of its malaise to turn it into a world power. Does that mean I like him? No. But I am willing to acknowledge positive character traits. By doing so, I believe I am more able to honestly assess who he was. I didn’t see that willingness in KTK in this posting. Realistically if he was willing to look at people in such a way, he would never have attacked Rice the way he did.

KTK is more than capable of speaking for himself, but I will make this observation:

Big U, who proudly declares “I see the good and the bad in people,” sees KTK this way:

– filled with hatred
– severe level of intolerance
– completely intolerant
– more than willing to approve of people who muck up the lives of those you dislike
– the very embodiment of those you hate
– bitter and angry
– unwilling to look at people fairly

I’m not sure which of those is supposed to represent the good part.

And all of this based on the fact that KTK was angered by Condi Rice’s moral obtuseness in praising the “nice people” and “timelessness” of Augusta National without being able to spare a single sentence to note its past of racist discrimination or its present of sexist discrimination.

What was that about seeing the good and the bad?

In sum, KTK, who called Rice “smart, educated, cultured, [and] kind of hot” but a “continual disappointment,” is to be excoriated for a failure to see both “the good and the bad” while Big U and Condi Rice slide.

good?
KTK is passionate about what he believes in.
He’s a good writer.
He’s very well researched.
He’s an excellent debater from what I have seen.

Need I go on? I said I can see both sides, not that I comment on both. And my perspective on KTK goes far beyond just this one blog. I’m sure you knew that but used your “based on the fact” comment to paint me in a certain light. Oh, and by the way, your idea that I make my statement proudly says more about you than me. I have no pride in the fact. It’s just a simple statement.

“It’s just a simple statement” that you went out of your way to make (it being unnecessary to your argument) and go on about for a full paragraph. So spare me the “no pride” business.

And as I noted, KTK did say both good and bad things about Rice. Your claim to the contrary thus shows that either you weren’t paying attention to what you read or you didn’t care. Considering that, again, you completely missed (or misunderstood or ignored) the point of the post (which could be labeled as Rice having failed to meet your own standard of seeing both the good and the bad) I suspect those possibilities to be of equal probability.

No. KTK was struck at how Rice was able to do that – given who she is and the history of the place she is talking about. When it came time to give her opinion on the place, she decided to focus on marigolds or some shit (maybe a bad choice, I’m no botanist) instead of the notable history of racism and sexism.

This also isn’t an either or thing. This is not saying that Rice isn’t aware of the history, or has no feeling about it. Nor, does this mean KTK is incapable of recognizing beauty independent of context. The post was about Rice’s curious choice of what to privilege (the good or bad, or, rather, ugly) of Augusta.

I have pretty much the same reaction. A conspicuous absence is the way I’ve put it throughout my comments on the subject.

Comments are closed.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.